Tell me why this is in Wisconsin's interest

Planet Gore took note of Jim Doyle's anti-carbon treaty with the U.K.

Yet another pair in a series of climate non-aggression pacts have been inked between U.S. states and foreign governments. This time, according to Greenwire (password required), “Wisconsin and Michigan entered into separate agreements with the United Kingdom on Monday, vowing to work together toward solutions to climate change. Under the pacts, Britain and the states agree to share research and ideas about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting low-carbon technologies and raising public awareness.”

Here’s a quick refresher. Article I, Section 10:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

These two agreements appear to be arguably less “a cooperative effort . . . to reduce carbon dioxide emissions” as are the regional climate pacts such as RGGI or their counterparts with, e.g., Canadian provinces. But do they nonetheless still purport to supplant activities which the constitution vests exclusively with the federal government, barring express approval by Congress?

Nevermind the constitutional implications, what is Wisconsin's interest in preventing or reducing global warming? There is no downside to warmer weather in Wisconsin. It is cold here. Besides taxes, the cold is the one thing that drives people out of the state.

Rising sea levels, increased tropical storms, sweltering temperatures? These are not are problems for Wisconsin and never will be.

Glaciation, that is a problem for Wisconsin. There will be another glacier on its way. It is never to early to start preparations for the next ice age.